Smoking on balconies

[Mysticalmother]

 

As for bringing alcohol on board, the majority do so because they want a drink in their cabin whilst getting ready for dinner or in their cabin before retiring for the night. It doesn't mean they stop buying drinks in the bars & restaurant too.

 

I just get on with enjoying my cruise without looking for things to moan about - life's too short!

 

You have hit the nail right on the proverbial head. I think we would get on just fine! :)(....and my OH has ha skin cancer too)

[Scriv]

To me there is a huge difference between restricting smoking and restricting drink - or sunbathing :)

 

Smokers can affect my own health, well being and smell if their smoke gets near to me - as it does from neighbouring balconies. but I don't begrudge the smokers a part of the ship to themselves - I just keep well away from there.

 

As to restricting people's alchohol intake, alcohol only affect their own livers not mine and has no effect on me. True, you get the odd folk who have too much and cause a nuisance, but to be fair, they are few and far between and are dealt with promptly.

 

And as to sunbathing - again it is up to other people to decide their own tolerances and life risks. Once again this does not affect me or my holiday.

 

But smokers easily do if they are not restricted to a part of the ship that non-smokers can easily avoid.

 

That's my two-penneth anyway lol.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Scriv

[cruisebore]

Having just booked a cruise (veranda stateroom) for much less than I paid 13 years ago. Thank you P&O for deterring so many from cruising and ensuring you have to give such great deals :-D

 

Cb

[Elephant999]

Why do some people have this urge to 'ban' any activity that doesn't suit them - especially on a cruise ship? The non smoking on balconies rule I can understand as there are designated smoking areas on ships that smokers can use but to then suggest banning alcohol brought on ships & a 'quota' of alcohol allowed to be purchased at bars is laughable. Bar staff can refuse to serve passengers who they believe are inebriated - they should do so instead of having a blanket rule thrust upon those who drink within moderation but may just go over that quota you suggest.

As for bringing alcohol on board, I know that some do so because they don't want to pay P & O prices, however the majority do so because they want a drink in their cabin whilst getting ready for dinner or in their cabin before retiring for the night. It doesn't mean they stop buying drinks in the bars & restaurant too.

So now the smoking ban has been won people want to move on to an alcohol ban/quota. Why not go the whole hog and ban gambling in the casinos (addictive) and sunbathing (skin cancer threat). Having skin cancer I would love to walk up to all those basting in oil in the sun & warn them of the damage they could be doing but I don't because I have no right to question another adult's choice in life - I just get on with enjoying my cruise without looking for things to moan about - life's too short!

 

Quite, I am a smoker and will obviously observe the non smoking whilst on my mini suite balcony, however, smokers are being labelled as the scum of the earth, funnily enough quite often by ex smokers which is ironic.

 

If one doesn't like being in contact with other people, as their habits may offend, surely cruising is the wrong choice...

 

As for passengers walking by the designated smoking areas making a show of the smoke being anti social, get a life!

 

As for e-cigarettes, the anti smoking brigade are now whinging about them...

[Margana]

Quite, I am a smoker and will obviously observe the non smoking whilst on my mini suite balcony, however, smokers are being labelled as the scum of the earth, funnily enough quite often by ex smokers which is ironic.

 

If one doesn't like being in contact with other people, as their habits may offend, surely cruising is the wrong choice...

 

As for passengers walking by the designated smoking areas making a show of the smoke being anti social, get a life!

 

As for e-cigarettes, the anti smoking brigade are now whinging about them...

 

I’ve never thought that a rational person can truly believe that smoke from an adjacent balcony can be a significant hazard to health. The dilution, dispersion, open air location, transitory and fleeting exposure all factor against this.

I do believe that those who are anti-smoking quite simply don’t like it, and citing an imposed health risk with a dreaded outcome (based on data from entirely different scenarios involving chronic cumulative exposure) have successfully convinced the cruise companies to prohibit the practice. Extend the health argument and there should be a ban on garden bonfires, Guy Fawkes Night, campfires, barbecues and frying food in vegetable oils, which can all produce a large range and volume of carcinogenic particulate and gases. What next – close down chip shops and prohibit the sale of woks? But that’s ridiculous isn’t it.

If, as has been suggested, P&O fare reductions have resulted from fewer bookings occasioned by the balcony smoking ban, then presumably the ban will soon be lifted to raise company profits to previous levels. Now that would be interesting.

[DolphinWatcher]

I’ve never thought that a rational person can truly believe that smoke from an adjacent balcony can be a significant hazard to health. The dilution, dispersion, open air location, transitory and fleeting exposure all factor against this.

I do believe that those who are anti-smoking quite simply don’t like it, and citing an imposed health risk with a dreaded outcome (based on data from entirely different scenarios involving chronic cumulative exposure) have successfully convinced the cruise companies to prohibit the practice. Extend the health argument and there should be a ban on garden bonfires, Guy Fawkes Night, campfires, barbecues and frying food in vegetable oils, which can all produce a large range and volume of carcinogenic particulate and gases. What next – close down chip shops and prohibit the sale of woks? But that’s ridiculous isn’t it.

If, as has been suggested, P&O fare reductions have resulted from fewer bookings occasioned by the balcony smoking ban, then presumably the ban will soon be lifted to raise company profits to previous levels. Now that would be interesting.

 

I have to say that I broadly agree with you, however as an asthmatic with an asthmatic child, even the smallest amount of smoke makes us cough and smoking on a balcony next to us would be extremely uncomfortable. Yes, we do avoid fireworks night and campfires for the same reason. We're over sensitive to it, I know, but can do nothing about it and am personally glad the balcony rule has been brought in otherwise I would not be able to use one.

 

Smokers are absolutely entitled to exercise their right to smoke, but as a rational asthmatic I'm glad it's not next to me.

[Spikey M]

Most people simply want to be able to sit on their balcony without the stench of cigarettes. Majority rules.

[Margana]

I have to say that I broadly agree with you, however as an asthmatic with an asthmatic child, even the smallest amount of smoke makes us cough and smoking on a balcony next to us would be extremely uncomfortable. Yes, we do avoid fireworks night and campfires for the same reason. We're over sensitive to it, I know, but can do nothing about it and am personally glad the balcony rule has been brought in otherwise I would not be able to use one.

 

Smokers are absolutely entitled to exercise their right to smoke, but as a rational asthmatic I'm glad it's not next to me.

 

Thank you for the reasoned response. While not devaluing this, would it be correct to say that the particular condition requires control or avoidance of other environmental agents other than smoke, eg pollens, traffic fumes, household cleaners and aerosol sprays, perfumes, household pets and even weather and changes in temperature. Some of these could be encountered on a cruise, either on the ship or while ashore in foreign ports, and as with campfires etc. exposure is limited or avoided. It’s a compromise approach which you accept, but regrettably that’s not a philosophy adopted by others - not the majority (who probably don’t have any axe to grind), but a vocal minority.

[davecttr]

There was a fire aboard a cruise ship where passengers died. the most likely cause was a cigarette discarded over a balcony rail which landed on another balcony, smouldered away and caused the fire. Good enough reason for me.

 

ps - i often sit in the outdoor smoking areas although i don't smoke, if the smell is too strong i can always move away. however if it was my balcony i would be upset.

[DolphinWatcher]

Thank you for the reasoned response. While not devaluing this, would it be correct to say that the particular condition requires control or avoidance of other environmental agents other than smoke, eg pollens, traffic fumes, household cleaners and aerosol sprays, perfumes, household pets and even weather and changes in temperature. Some of these could be encountered on a cruise, either on the ship or while ashore in foreign ports, and as with campfires etc. exposure is limited or avoided. It’s a compromise approach which you accept, but regrettably that’s not a philosophy adopted by others - not the majority (who probably don’t have any axe to grind), but a vocal minority.

 

Thankfully only pets out of that list, which I have never encountered on a cruise other than a guide dog at Easter which was easy to circumnavigate! Oh, and horses in ports. I would definitely object to horses on balconies....

[Margana]

Thankfully only pets out of that list, which I have never encountered on a cruise other than a guide dog at Easter which was easy to circumnavigate! Oh, and horses in ports. I would definitely object to horses on balconies....

 

No argument there.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Margana

[Selbourne]

I am delighted that P&O have banned smoking on balconies (it is years overdue) and cannot believe some of the ridiculous comments made by some on here criticising this decision.

 

I am staggered that in 2014 there are still people denying the proven fact that passive smoking is harmful. Even if it wasn't, the stench of cigarette smoke is absolutely revolting. What smokers often fail to appreciate is that is it not visible 'smoke' that others can smell, but invisible fumes. I can smell a cigarette from a distance of at least 50ft - and I am not exaggerating.

 

I understand that smoking is an addiction (although some probably deny that also) and very hard to give up, but the fact remains that the vast and overwhelming majority of the population don't smoke and most non-smokers dislike the smell of it. Every cruise where we have had a balcony has been partially spoilt by having to head back in to the cabin every time someone nearby lights up, not just immediately adjacent cabins.

 

If it was up to me, I would ban smoking entirely from ships. Aside from the above, it is probably one of the most significant fire risks and fire is the biggest risk at sea. But then again, if it was up to me, I would ban smoking period. There, that should get you going!

 

As for prices dropping as smokers desert P&O in droves, hogwash. I dare say that a large number of serious addicts will stop cruising. Fantastic. I for one, will book more cruises as a result of this policy change as will many others. I say again, smokers are a minority group and thankfully declining all the time.

 

Finally, I hope that P&O staff do a better job of 'policing' the no-smoking areas than they have done on previous cruises. I am sick of finding smokers puffing away on the non-smoking side of promenade decks and sometimes there are even ashtrays there!

[Elephant999]

Whilst I agree with your first 2 paragraphs, I will reply with a reasonable response, not having to resort to calling people's comments "ridiculous". It is, like yours, their own personal opinion.

 

I totally understand why non smokers don't like the smell of smoke, that's why I shall only smoke in the designated areas and respect the rules, but I will not tolerate one of the anti smoking brigade on their very high horses, having a go if i am in a designated smoking area and they are walking through. And I'm all for P and O policing the smoking policy, I hate cigarette butts! Just because I am a smoker doesn't mean I am deliberately a rule breaker.

 

As for the fire risk of smoking on board, somebody quoted that there had been cruise ship deaths due to fire probably started by somebody throwing a cigarette over which landed on the balcony below. I would like to see the article this relates to or is this supposition and scaremongering?

 

I've scoured the internet looking for it and the fires in cruise ships in the main have been either engine room or incinerator related.

 

Luckily it's not up to you to ban smoking, oh dear, never mind.

[Spikey M]

Anybody that is walking by the smoking area to pass judgement deserves to be told where to go in no uncertain terms. That is ridiculous behaviour.

[Sanjam cruisers]

Hi Elephant999

Google "Star Princess", there was a serious fire onboard I believe in 2006 which affected a large number of cabins and balconies. The cause is believed to be a cigar/cigarette butt thrown overboard and blown back onto a balcony.

[davecttr]

Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) Report no 28/2006

 

Investigation into a fire aboard Star Princess. one passenger died.

 

 

From Section 3 conclusions

 

2. The fire started on the balconies in the vicinity of staterooms C316 and C318, on deck10, and was probably ignited by a cigarette end discarded elsewhere. [2.3.1, 2.3.2]

[cruisebore]

Anybody that is walking by the smoking area to pass judgement deserves to be told where to go in no uncertain terms. That is ridiculous behaviour.

 

It can be quite engrossing watching the zealots out for a 'bit of sport' in the smoking areas, unfortunately you don't hear much verbal comment, however the contrived coughing and wind farm imitations are entertaining.

 

Cb <--- ex smoker

[Elephant999]

While a smouldering discarded cigarette probably did cause the flames, the following items were also at fault for allowing the fire to spread as quickly as it did:

 

The balconies' polycarbonate partitions, polyurethane deck tiles, and the plastic furniture were highly combustible and produced large quantities of very thick black smoke when burned.

The glass in the doors between the staterooms and balconies was neither fire retardant, to meet with the requirements of an ‘A’ class division, nor self-closing.

The balconies crossed main zone fire boundaries, both horizontally and vertically, and were without structural or thermal barriers at the zone or deck boundaries.

No fire detection or fire suppression systems were fitted on the balconies.

 

(Extract from Wikipedia)

 

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the report. Ignition source plus the combustible fuel and the woeful lack of fire separation, led to passenger fatalities and injuries.

 

I agree actually smoking on balconies is a pain for non smokers and there is a risk of fire, however, given good structural integrity and proper fire precautions, this fire would have not spread horizontally or vertically.

 

Actually, there are risks to using e-cigarette chargers and cheap phone chargers and there have been several fatalities attributed to these, but let's put things into perspective.

 

And yes I am a Fire Safety Officer....

[1160451]

Does anybody no if p&o enforce the no smoking policy on balconies

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums mobile app

 

Given one of your posts on the HAL site, it seems to me that this is what I call a "fishing" post and everybody seems to have bitten.

Maybe you could have asked do they enforce the dress rule to go the whole hog.

[cruisebore]

Given one of your posts on the HAL site, it seems to me that this is what I call a "fishing" post and everybody seems to have bitten.

Maybe you could have asked do they enforce the dress rule to go the whole hog.

 

 

and not forgetting to ask " how many books do you have to leave on a sunbed to reserve it"

 

Cb

[1160451]

....like it

Edited September 7, 2014 by 1160451

[Selbourne]

While a smouldering discarded cigarette probably did cause the flames, the following items were also at fault for allowing the fire to spread as quickly as it did:

 

The balconies' polycarbonate partitions, polyurethane deck tiles, and the plastic furniture were highly combustible and produced large quantities of very thick black smoke when burned.

The glass in the doors between the staterooms and balconies was neither fire retardant, to meet with the requirements of an ‘A’ class division, nor self-closing.

The balconies crossed main zone fire boundaries, both horizontally and vertically, and were without structural or thermal barriers at the zone or deck boundaries.

No fire detection or fire suppression systems were fitted on the balconies.

 

(Extract from Wikipedia)

 

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the report. Ignition source plus the combustible fuel and the woeful lack of fire separation, led to passenger fatalities and injuries.

 

I agree actually smoking on balconies is a pain for non smokers and there is a risk of fire, however, given good structural integrity and proper fire precautions, this fire would have not spread horizontally or vertically.

 

Actually, there are risks to using e-cigarette chargers and cheap phone chargers and there have been several fatalities attributed to these, but let's put things into perspective.

 

And yes I am a Fire Safety Officer....

 

Far be it from me to challenge the wisdom of a 'Fire Safety Officer', but surely vast numbers of things on ships (or anywhere for that matter) are flammable? In fact I can't think of many that aren't.

 

Surely the point being debated here is that (and I will stand corrected) that none of these things spontaneously combust? As you rightly point out, there has to be a source of ignition and in this case it was a cigarette.

 

Had the idiot concerned not discarded a smouldering cigarette butt in an irresponsible manner, the fire wouldn't have started at all, never mind spread and another cruiser might still be alive to contribute to these forums and counter some of the most bizarre attempts used by smokers to justify this appalling habit.

 

I may not be a fire expert, but as a senior professional in the health service I see the effects of smoking (and passive smoking) on a daily basis, mostly with cancer patients. Many of them sadly don't come to terms with the impact of their addiction until it is too late and the result is that they end up leaving loved ones behind often decades before their time.

 

I'm all for personal choice and I'm not one of those who makes a fuss when smokers are huddled in designated areas (or 'cancer corner' as I refer to them), but sadly there are too many smokers who have a blatant disregard for the fact that smoking does impact others adversely, whether it be from a health or bad odour perspective and I am delighted that common sense has prevailed and P&O has done what it should have done years ago.

[jeanlyon]

Couldn't agree more.

[cruisebore]

As an ex smoker I think the anti smoking brigade should be expressing surprise, and congratulating the smoker at the manner in which they have accepted and complied with what to many was seen as draconian legislation. Sadly, be it banning smoking or any activity that does not suit, there is an element of society that does not get the concept of compromise.

BTW my experience of smokers, the vast majority who now think they are considered little better than lepers, and rather than finding them smoking were they shouldn't be, they are trying to be inconspicuous even in smoking areas.

 

Cb

[Elephant999]

Far be it from me to challenge the wisdom of a 'Fire Safety Officer', but surely vast numbers of things on ships (or anywhere for that matter) are flammable? In fact I can't think of many that aren't.

 

Surely the point being debated here is that (and I will stand corrected) that none of these things spontaneously combust? As you rightly point out, there has to be a source of ignition and in this case it was a cigarette.

 

Had the idiot concerned not discarded a smouldering cigarette butt in an irresponsible manner, the fire wouldn't have started at all, never mind spread and another cruiser might still be alive to contribute to these forums and counter some of the most bizarre attempts used by smokers to justify this appalling habit.

 

I may not be a fire expert, but as a senior professional in the health service I see the effects of smoking (and passive smoking) on a daily basis, mostly with cancer patients. Many of them sadly don't come to terms with the impact of their addiction until it is too late and the result is that they end up leaving loved ones behind often decades before their time.

 

I'm all for personal choice and I'm not one of those who makes a fuss when smokers are huddled in designated areas (or 'cancer corner' as I refer to them), but sadly there are too many smokers who have a blatant disregard for the fact that smoking does impact others adversely, whether it be from a health or bad odour perspective and I am delighted that common sense has prevailed and P&O has done what it should have done years ago.

 

Deary me,

 

Most furniture and soft furnishings are flame retardant in commercial premises, obviously things can combust but hey, you obviously know everything there is to know and can't be reasoned with without referring to people as idiots or irresponsible.

 

Incidentally I find your intonation at the start of your post offensive.

 

I have said that I will abide by the rules to which you then ranted about anti social this and that and didn't even acknowledge that.I find some people offensive when they are drunk but that's their choice and I ignore their behaviour.

 

Luckily, I have a more reasonable approach to other peoples personal choice, but why don't you have a go at excessive drinkers as well, surely they can die early too?

 

Good grief, you need to step back and realise that people can enjoy themselves in whatever manner they seem fit, but as the last poster inferred, I will not hide in a corner because I'm a smoker and should be vilified, the smoking areas are a compromise that everybody should accept.

 

If the ships do become no smoking it won't stop me going, I will take an e-cigarette but let's ban those as well shall we?

 

As a 'senior Professional ' in the Health Service, no doubt you are going to campaign for a ban on these..........

Edited September 7, 2014 by Elephant999